[rdeyes]

Nuclear Weapons - 2005 Developments

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... ke2005.htm

so which is it .. they arent trying to build a bomb or are they oOo:

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by KTOG

Name 1 war that was started for a good reason? (I'm not talking about relatition) I mean that one guy or country has to fuck it up for the rest of us, then a bunch of comformists follow him because of some bs called patriotism. The only good war is if aliens came to our Earth and started shooting lasers at us.

i can think of a few. The American Civil War is an easy example. A dude pushed us into it with patriotism essentially (Lincoln). By saying that, I do not agree that the middle east situation looks OK due to patriotism. People just blame everything on patriotism and religion b/c they don't agree with the other side. People that support the war are not walking, american t-shirt wearing zombies...please understand that.

[KTOG]

I believe the Civil War indeed was fought for other sesession (sp), a just reason such as slavery was secondary in Lincoln's mind. It was necessary to form the country we have today; if it never happened, would we notice the difference?

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by KTOG

if it never happened, would we notice the difference?

si

[KTOG]

Not a yes or no question. I mean would we patholigically see slavery as a bad thing or a necessary part of the economy?

Either way this is a discussion for another thread. /derailment.

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by KTOG

Either way this is a discussion for another thread. /derailment.

agreed

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by Chappy

look tripper, i respect your opinion and your argument but i cant agree with you that iraq and afghanistan are more fucked up now than they were before and al quieda's organization is ducking and running...the aim for the "war on terror" in the first place

You have to be insane. Iraq is fucked. The longterm is unkown, but right now - It is a giant shitstorm. There is absolutely NO WAY it is currently in better shape than it was before the invasion. I just don't accept that, It's total shit. (I'm excluding Afgahnistan, because It isn't in the same state).

Originally Posted by Chappy

call me a moron if you like but i would rather err on the side of being wrong rather than some militant muslims who hate israel having nukes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here on account of the terrible indecipherable sentence - But it looks as though you are turning this, once again, into something it's not. It's not about sides. Not supporting the U.S actions DOES NOT mean you automatically support the terrorists/insurgents. This isn't a sports match. I support the innocent people caught up in all this, American troops and Iraqi citizens.

Originally Posted by Chappy

given the fact that if they die in battle, they'll go to heaven, whats to stop them from finally ridding the world of the Zionists?

That is an ignorant generalisation of the Islamic religion brought about by the media and the government exploiting paranoia. Why all of a sudden in the last 5 years, has everyone instantly become fearful of islamic fundamentalists coming to blow them up? 10 years ago, there was none of this on the scale it is now. It's called fear-mongering.

So you can rest easy, and take my word for it when I say not every muslim is ready to blow himself up to kill a few "zionists."

Originally Posted by Chappy

not putting words into your mouth...lines are pretty easily read between and other than having a bargaining chip on the world stage, what in the world would korea and iran do with nukes?

You must be on more drugs than me.

You were putting words in my mouth, you were telling me what my opinion was - and you were totally wrong. Don't shit me.

Let me put it too you this way, by rephrasing your question: Other than having a bargaining chip on the world stage, what in the world would the U.S do with nukes?

[rdeyes]

so the iraqi people were in better shape with saddam in power ? is that you are saying tripper ?

the afghani people were in better shape with the taliban in power ? is that what you are saying tripper ?

saddam used chemical weapons on his own people , invaded kuwait , brutally enforced his rule by murdering people that didnt agree with him, gave his sadistic sons power who in turn murdered and raped people at will. i say the iraqi are alot better without saddam in power

the taliban well thats a story that we all know about, opressed women , enforced the most strictest form of islam ever known to man, harbored a known terrorist that is responisble for the death of 3,000 or more innocent people , i say the afghani people are much better off without the taliban in power.

North Korea , well thats another well known story that kim il jung starves his people while he lives like a king, what good could possibly come from him having any type of nuclear weapons. the US offered to give the north korean people 60 tons of food in exchange for him giving up his nuclear weapon program , but once again he laughed at that.

Iran is lead by a religous zealot that wants to see israel destroyed , i say the world let israel handle this one on their own, they arent in fact trying to build a nuclear bomb even though buttocks posted a article which is nothing short of a lie , they already have nuclear weapons.


cheers beer:

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

so the iraqi people were in better shape with saddam in power ? is that you are saying tripper ?

Absofuckinglutely. Back then it was a COUNTRY. Not a fucking warzone with daily carbombings, limited power/water/healthcare. Not to mention all the junk and the shit that gets left behind in a war.

The type of government and it's leader that they had before the invasion is irrelevant whether it was good or not. The fact is they were a functioning country with citizens that commuted to society. Now the country isn't even a country. It barely has a government.

You would be far more safer in Iraq the country as opposed to Iraq the warzone. I can't believe you are even arguing this.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

the afghani people were in better shape with the taliban in power ? is that what you are saying tripper ?

This is a bit different - I excluded this for that reason.....But you only need to compare the amount of innocent deaths from the war, to the amount of innocent deaths under the taliban government to get a clear idea. This area is more unstable than it was under the taliban.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

saddam used chemical weapons on his own people , invaded kuwait , brutally enforced his rule by murdering people that didnt agree with him, gave his sadistic sons power who in turn murdered and raped people at will. i say the iraqi are alot better without saddam in power

Yes, that aspect (Sadaam out of power) is a good thing. Overall though - the people aren't better off as a result of the war.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

the taliban well thats a story that we all know about, opressed women , enforced the most strictest form of islam ever known to man, harbored a known terrorist that is responisble for the death of 3,000 or more innocent people , i say the afghani people are much better off without the taliban in power.

.....3,000 dead over a longer period of time is alot better than 3,700 civilian deaths from American bombs. Afgahnistan is slightly different, seeing as there was more of a valid reason for invasion. Doesn't change the fact that the country is unstable and fucked. People keep on attempting to assasinate whatever puppet leader the Americans put in.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

North Korea , well thats another well known story that kim il jung starves his people while he lives like a king, what good could possibly come from him having any type of nuclear weapons. the US offered to give the north korean people 60 tons of food in exchange for him giving up his nuclear weapon program , but once again he laughed at that.

What good could possibly come from the U.S having any type of nuclear weapons?? For fucks sake. We have more reason to trust Kim Jong than we do Bush. The war in Iraq was started under false pretenses. What's stopping Bush from nuking North Korea under false pretenses? The U.S is the only country that has ever nuked anyone, so we know they're capable of it. Jong hasn't even started a war, unlike Bush, who in a single term - Started two wars, and is currently working on his third. rolleyes:

Originally Posted by rdeyes

Iran is lead by a religous zealot that wants to see israel destroyed , i say the world let israel handle this one on their own, they arent in fact trying to build a nuclear bomb even though buttocks posted a article which is nothing short of a lie , they already have nuclear weapons.

How do you know? Are you CIA? Even then, I wouldn't trust your judgement. (....WMDs). Can't you see a pattern forming with the way Bush conducts his foreign policy? "Hey! Middle eastern country - Our excellent intelligence proves you have some kind of weapon of mass destruction - Get rid of it or we will invade you. Not gonna get rid of it? Ok here we come!...........Oops. Turns out we were wrong. Oh well, too late."

You talk alot of shit about other countries doing this and doing that, but none of them top starting a war. Bush is indirectly responsible for causing more deaths than all of these dictators combined.

[Wilko]

Trip, rdeyes stated in an earlier post that he is arguing in support of America because it's his own Country. He doesn't actually give a shit about the facts of the matter, he's just being blindly patriotic (like the Iraqis he hates, ironically enough :P). Don't bother with logic, you're wasting your time.

Use grunts and other monosylabic arguements instead. Mebbe they'll get through. Save the logic for people like ktog that actually have an understanding of what's going on that extends further than what CNN feeds him. rolleyes:

[c312]

Trip, at least the people in Iraq are dying in an attempt to bring themselves peace and democracy. Before, they were being killed by Saddam for no reason at all.

[rdeyes]

I give up , you guys bash me for speaking my mind.

if it were up to you guys the world would sing cute little songs and hold hands, but sadly thats not the way it works in todays society. keep on with the american bashing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/wmd_state.htm.

[c312]

Originally Posted by Tripper

Bush is indirectly responsible for causing more deaths than all of these dictators combined.

False.

[rdeyes]

Originally Posted by c312

False.

i dont think he has heard of the iran iraq war 1,000,000 deaths

i dont think he has heard about the famine in north korea

are you saying the bush is worse than kim il jung tripper ? care to present some facts to back up your claims ? i'll go first heres a little snippet about North Korea's human right record,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... orth_Korea

your turn

[KTOG]

I think he is refering to the current wars.